Recently, while navigating Netflix’s “Most Watched” list, I stumbled upon the number one film, a true crime documentary titled “What Jennifer Did.” The film recounts the disturbing 2010 home invasion of Jennifer Pan’s family, where her mother was tragically murdered, and her father was critically injured. The title itself, What Jennifer Did, strongly hints at Jennifer’s involvement, removing any real mystery from the narrative. However, beyond the somewhat predictable storyline, the documentary raises a more unsettling question: did “What Jennifer Did” utilize AI-generated or AI-enhanced photos, and what are the ethical implications?
While the documentary covers the grim details of the crime – multiple assailants, the brutal attack, and Jennifer Pan’s potential role – it offers little beyond readily available information found in online summaries. Notably absent are interviews with key figures like Jennifer Pan, her ex-boyfriend (a central figure in the crime), or any of the assailants. This results in a narrative that leans towards a simplified, almost propagandistic police perspective, lacking deeper insights into Jennifer Pan’s life and motivations.
However, one aspect of “What Jennifer Did” stood out for its questionable production choices: the apparent manipulation of audio in interrogation scenes and the concerning possibility of AI-enhanced photographs without disclosure. Given the extensive use of interrogation footage, the enhanced audio becomes immediately noticeable. Even with a basic understanding of audio recording, the clarity and fidelity achieved in the documentary’s interrogation scenes sound unnatural, especially considering the visible lack of close-proximity microphones in the footage. It strongly suggests the use of audio enhancement technology, possibly AI-driven, to improve the sound quality.
Netflix’s “What Jennifer Did” documentary still frame, highlighting the true crime genre and Netflix platform.
The rationale behind enhancing interrogation audio might be understandable – to make crucial dialogue clearer for viewers. However, this decision becomes problematic without transparency, especially considering the significance of audio evidence in the case. For instance, Jennifer Pan’s 911 call, made while supposedly tied up, is a critical piece of evidence examined in the film. The documentary even includes a visual demonstration of Pan making the call with her phone at her waist, a demonstration that appears unconvincing. In this context, manipulating other audio within the film, especially interrogation recordings, without acknowledgment raises serious concerns about the film’s overall integrity.
Adding to these concerns, reports from Futurism, Petapixel, and 404 Media have highlighted the potential use of AI-enhanced or even AI-generated photos within “What Jennifer Did”. Several pre-murder photos of Jennifer Pan displayed in the documentary exhibit digital artifacts that strongly suggest AI manipulation. It appears filmmakers may have taken genuine photographs and used AI to sharpen them and fill in details, presumably to improve their visual appeal for high-definition viewing on Netflix.
Comparison image from Futurism highlighting potential AI artifacts in photos used in Netflix’s “What Jennifer Did”, suggesting AI photo enhancement.
While AI in promotional art for fictional films is already a debated topic, using AI to alter pre-existing photographs in a documentary crosses a significant ethical line. It’s not only unnecessary – viewers generally accept the varying quality of archival photos – but it fundamentally undermines the documentary’s credibility. If historical photographs are manipulated without disclosure, how can viewers trust any aspect of the presented narrative? The lack of transparency regarding potential AI usage in both audio and visuals creates a significant credibility gap.
The response from Netflix and the filmmakers remains to be seen. However, the apparent use of AI in “What Jennifer Did” underscores a concerning trend: a growing willingness to employ AI in contexts previously considered off-limits, even in documentary filmmaking where factual accuracy is paramount. Addressing this requires a strong and sustained public dialogue to establish ethical boundaries and ensure transparency in the use of AI in media. Only then can we hope to maintain trust in documentary filmmaking and the presentation of factual accounts.
Further Reading
- Futurism Article on AI Photos in “What Jennifer Did”
- Petapixel Report on Netflix AI Photo Accusations
- 404 Media Coverage on AI Image Use in Netflix Documentary
- Threads Post Analyzing AI Manipulation
Other Stuff by David Chen
- David Chen’s Gaming YouTube Channel
- David Chen’s Twitch Channel
- [Vlog about Chasing the Solar Eclipse](Link to Vlog if available, otherwise remove)
